Revised: The Road From Geneva to Jonestown Starts With Believing the First Lie; A Lie That Our Home Fellowships Reject
Originally Posted September 2, 2012
“Many of the Temple members left notes and letters behind. Some Temple members wrote of their desire to leave all their assets to the Soviet Union. One unsigned letter read, ‘We did not want it this way. When we heard (that Congressman Ryan was killed) we had no choice. We would be taken. We have to go as one, we want to live as Peoples Temple or end it. We have chosen. It is finished.'”
I will be starting a series of studies with my family today. The series will begin with discussing a photo of 900 bodies rotting in the hot sun in what was once the Jim Jones theocracy of Jonestown. I will begin with asking my family if they think they are smarter than every one of the people who are lying dead in that photo. I will then ask them if they think they are more educated than every person in that photo. If the assumed answers to these rhetorical questions are “no,” then how did these people get there?
Did they willingly, even joyfully, drink from the vat of poison as a result of following the truth? No. But in the initial days of this sect, could there have been a mass suicide day one? Not likely. Why not? Because there was not yet a consensus of belief that led to the action. You get from point A to point H by believing a series of lies that build on each other…
…but it all starts with the first lie. Satan did not introduce himself to Eve with a proposal to eat the fruit God told her not to eat. She ate at the end of a series of propositions.
I read a lie, actually written by a good-guy the other day that is a classic New Calvinist (read “Protestant”) lie that ensnares many into their body of thought. This is not a person who would ordinarily buy into New Calvinism—knowingly. But we don’t buy into anything that we think will turn out bad. The lie is that the gospel is about, “community,” and “relationship,” and the idea that original sin was a sin against “relationship.”
Sounds good. Sounds profound. Makes logical sense. And it is an element of truth for certain. But the crux here is that the New Calvinists (Protestant, and every other cult in the world) then make that truth bigger than what it is in order to lead you elsewhere. The “group” as the pinnacle of purpose is the foundational premise of Communism (as in Marx, Stalin, etc.), as the name implies. “Community” is a good and true concept if it is not used to pave the road to bad places. By the way, Jones’ theology was based on Marxist doctrine (“Apostolic Socialism”).
It all goes something like this:
A. Community is what it is all about, “it’s not about you” (wow! Who would disagree with that?).
B. And of course, this makes UNITY very, very, important (duh! You look stupid if you disagree with that. No?).
C. But this also brings up a problem (Oh my!): The community is made of individuals (duh), and they are not always going to agree on things (double duh). What to do? (Pray tell).
D. We don’t always agree on things because we are sinners, but God has divinely appointed men to help us because God has gifted them with the gift of teaching. They can see the truth better than we can. And the truth is very, very, very important, so the church utilizes a group of these men to work together—just to make sure the church is being led by the truth (read, “truth as unity for the sake of unity”). We call these men “elders,” can you say, “e-l-d-e-r”?
E. Therefore, we should listen to obey these men. But, some people don’t like to listen, so the group/community should support the elders in disciplining these people in love for the sake of unity.
F. And in regard to yourself, if the elders are saying something that doesn’t seem right to you, and you disagree with them, you are saying that you are smarter than ALL of the elders. You don’t want to do that, do you?
G. And you don’t want to cause disunity, do you?
H: A+B+C+D+E+F = We do whatever the elders tell us to do for the sake of the group. Besides, they are accountable to God as his “under shepherds” and not us.
This is the same line of reasoning that ruled Calvin’s Geneva that the New Calvinists dream of in our day. And on a hot sunny day in Jonestown, “H” was a final sermon by Jim Jones ending with an alter call to the vat. Meanwhile, other followers who were not even present, and located in other parts of the world complied to the alter call and slew their children with knives before taking their own lives.
And it all started with believing the “community” lie.
At this point, I direct you to the introductory meme at the top of this post. The answer to the question posed by Bastiat, according to Protestant orthodoxy, is, in fact, “yes.” Protestant orthodoxy holds to the idea that God does, in fact, preordain certain men to “save God’s people from ignorance” (Al Mohler). Know this: Protestantism’s infatuation with predeterminism points directly to the authority/control issue.
It’s not an oxymoron; truth wrongly applied is far more dangerous than outright lies. And in Protestant circles—no suicides, that is far too undignified, just burnings and beheadings in Calvin’s Geneva, and more recently in our day: broken marriages, countless broken friendships, countless church splits, relentless slandering, bogus church discipline, false incrimination, molestation cover-ups, unfettered arrogance, and outrageous propositions such as the “scream of the damned”….to name a few.
Lastly, a word on the return to real family-of-God fellowship/edification apart from manmade institutional authority. While it’s true that this sets God’s people free to maximize the individual gifts given to them, the so-called home church movement is way too loosey-goosey and seemingly a return to the Corinthian problem. This is one of many reasons that a distinction should be made between home church and home fellowship.
Freedom, a gospel truth, can certainly be misapplied in egregious ways, and is. Go figure that one of the unity problems in this movement is, “conflicting [direct individual] revelations.” Well, someone is either lying or misguided. In home fellowship, new birth resulting in a love for THE truth instead of A truth is assumed, and people are given space to be “convinced in their own minds” and their own consciences. Unity is based on agreement on the one mind of Christ, the head of His body…it’s a “body” analogy. The Bible states that all born again believers have that one mind that is developed by studying the word of God. How this works can be seen in the book of Acts regarding the care of the Greek widows, and how that problem was solved to everyone’s satisfaction.
Does not REASON have a standard? Yes it does, and the Bible also states that our service is according to reason and logic. Even non-Christians know things that are “self-evident” according to God’s creation. Group-think is the rejection of reason and logic as a metaphysical reality which always ends up in unthinkable sorrows. Group-think is determined by those supposedly made of a finer clay according to God’s predeterminism and the script of His metaphysical narrative.
Home fellowships will not use the truth of our freedom to create a hot mess, but will do all things decently and in order. The Spirit uses truth to sanctify and NOTHING else, and trust me, with Him coming alongside in the cooperation of truth, there will be plenty of fireworks to get excited over, but that’s His job, not ours; our job is to study in order to find ourselves approved of God and not ashamed as we apply that truth to life.
paul
What is the Single Most Important Thing for a Christian to Know Before Joining a New Calvinist “Church”?
Every New Calvinist church, by virtue of its body of thought developed over hundreds of years via the Reformed tradition, is a theocracy. Many churches in our day that claim to be part of the Reformation tradition are Calvinism Ultra-light. Know this: if you join a New Calvinist church, you are in a theocracy (or at least heading that way with intentionality). New Calvinism is the authentic Reformed article and theocracy goes hand in hand with it.
What is a theocracy? Wikipedia offers the following definition:
Theocracy is a form of government in which official policy is governed by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as (or claim to be) divinely guided, or is pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religion or religious group.
From the perspective of the theocratic government, “God himself is recognized as the head” of the state, hence the term theocracy, from the Greek θεοκρατία “rule of God.”
“But Paul, God isn’t down here on a throne.” Right. Instead, “divines” are appointed to rule for God by proxy. “Oh, ok, and the Bible determines how they rule, right?” Uh, no. If the Bible was the law (authority), what to do when Joe Church Member disagrees with the interpretation? No, no, we can’t have that, so the “divines” must predetermine what the correct interpretation is. Ever heard of the Westminster Confession? Ever heard if the Westminster Divines?
“Oh ya, New Calvinists quote that all the time. In fact, is that why they quote it more than the Bible?” You’re catching on. “But Paul, certainly they do not all agree on every element of the Westminster Confession.” Right, that’s why local New Calvinist elders have been “given the keys to the kingdom” and “whatever they bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” They have the final word on what all of the Reformed “doctors” and “divines” have determined as documented in the recognized “confessions.” This is known as orthodoxy. Their right to govern is known as church polity.
“Oh ya, God has given them the right to govern in the church.” Uh, it doesn’t stop there. In the authentic Reformed tradition, they believe they have a Divine mandate to rule all people as church and state. In fact, their eschatology is geared towards this as well. However, the American Revolution was the beginning of the end for the divine rights of kings. Nevertheless, this does not mean that they are going to slack on implementing their “full authority” in the local church regarding as it is in heaven, and if they had their way, on earth as well.
“Oh, so, that’s why they bring people up on church discipline for not tithing; in essence, they see it as a tax.” You are a very quick study. But of course, they wouldn’t state it that way. They would say that they are only holding you accountable as an act of love.
“So, what do congregants need their Bibles for?” It’s for the purpose of gospel contemplationism—not a book of authority to be interpreted individually. “Hmmm, sounds like this is an issue of authority. Are individual Christians mandated by God to interpret the Bible for themselves as His ultimate authority in their lives, or does that authority rest with the elders? It seems the latter is the Reformed position.”
Like I said, you are a quick study.
paul
Tchividjian a Heretic, But Not the “Reformers”? Really?
Joel Taylor over at 5 Point Salt .com has written some decent articles lately that have been brought to my attention via a mutual Facebook friend. Taylor doesn’t like “New Calvinists” since his falling out with New Calvinist Paul Washer. However, he recently defended Washer in reference to some of my posts, and referred to Washer as a “man of God.” So, I am not sure where his relationship stands at this time with the Washer New Calvinist, but this post makes it clear that he believes the Tchividjian New Calvinist teaches “heresy.” He also calls Tchividjian’s theology “brutish stupidity.”
Gee, I am beginning to take a liking to Tchividjian for two reasons: Taylor has tweeted similar things about me, so I feel his pain; and this I can say about Tchividjian and other New Calvinists; they know exactly what the Reformers taught. Really, I am beginning to feel sorry for some of these guys because of the berating they receive from “real Calvinists.” For crying out loud, at least they know what they believe, and the way they abuse people accordingly comes from conviction. I like conviction.
The focus of Taylor’s post is a Tchividjian tweet:
“Just as I am without one plea” is just as true for sanctification as it is for justification.
Joel Taylor, the “Calvinist” (note the name of his blog), noted that “With his own words he combines sanctification with justification.” Well, ya, that’s exactly what the Reformers did; compare Tchividjian’s quote with some stuff written by Luther that I was reading today in preparation for my next book project:
God wants sinners only….God has nothing to do with holy men because a holy man is a self-contradiction. God accepts believing sinners rather than sanctified saints (V.H.H.Green: Luther And The Reformation, p. 55).
Any questions?
The reemergence of authentic Reformed theology in the form of New Calvinism poses a huge problem for the professing Calvinists of our day. This recent resurgence has lasted way too long in the information age. These guys have been so loud, and so abusive for so long, that they have provoked an unfortunate number of people wanting answers with research following.
So, go easy on Tchividjian, after all, he’s only being faithful to the original article.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
8 comments